God's requirements for salvation include specific understandings and acknowledgements that some humans do not have - babies, young children, those severely mentally handicapped or mentally ill (the latter if their condition is since childhood) - these cannot adequately understand the Gospel, particularly in relation to their own sin and guilt, although younger children can (depending upon their maturity level) have a simple understanding of the Gospel message. And so God places responsibility for people's response to Him, upon those who have adequate understandings. He doesn't ask people to do what they cannot. And as we know God is just, IS Love, desires ALL would come to faith, takes no pleasure in the spiritual death of anyone, and we know of His character, mercy and justice. I would say we have every reason to trust that He sees to it that those in this described category make it into Heaven. Perhaps, children or babies who die actually grow up in Heaven? At some point, they will know and understand all about Jesus. How does all of this work - I don't know. But I do trust a God with such love as Jesus showed, with such children and people.

No, but the logic follows. Especially since we know a fetus has a spirit and is a person.

Kurieuo wrote:David's son also wasn't a woman.

I don't understand this comment?

It was in response to Nessa's comment, "davids son was not an aborted fetus." Think on it a little.

I dont understand either? Maybe its a blonde thing.

This thread is pertaining to unborn fetuses not babies out of the womb.

Correct, David's son wasn't an aborted fetus, neither was his son female. I'm trying to change my posting ways to give a shorter response, but I guess I'm being too enigmatic so I'll try unpack in classical Kurieuo style.

Why is it relevant that David's son, a born baby who died, wasn't an aborted fetus (i.e., a baby who died inutero)? The only way this isn't a valid comparison is if you identify some aspect David's baby possessed which a fetus doesn't share. Yet, as with those who condone being able to kill babies inutero (i.e., abortion), your options are limited to: Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependancy (SLED).

In pointing out David's son wasn't female, I was simply highlighting another aspect I saw as being different. You might consider it irrelevant that David's baby wasn't a girl, but given his baby was a boy can we really assume David would have been reunited with his baby had it been a girl? In all seriousness, I would agree that a gender distinction is irrelevant, just like your born/inutero distinction, because what is important is simply whether we have an individual human life present.

So then, Clay's 2 Sam 12:23 seems to be a valid comparison. Where it might become strained isn't as I see with the nature of a born baby versus one inutero (a fetus), but rather in making a hasty generalisation. That is, drawing a general conclusion that because David would be united with his baby who is presumably awaiting with God (a particular instance), that such applies to everyone who has lost a baby.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Nessa wrote:I agree with your end conclusion but I still think its a seperate issue depending on what you believe. If we lump it all together then we are assuming everyone thinks as we do.

The original posted made the seperation himself by not generalising all babies. To me, I would stay with that seperation.

You may agree with my conclusion, but to press the matter, it seem clear to me that you see a distinction between a baby inutero vs one born. It is that which interests me for you to expand upon.

Because, really, a human baby 10 weeks in the womb is a baby just as valuable as one 20 weeks in the womb, just as valuable as one 30 weeks in the womb, just as value as a newly born baby. For value I see comes inherently in simply being a human life. And what is/isn't human life isn't found in mere belief or opinion, but rather a fact biology can inform us about. A baby at all those stages just mentioned represents an individual human life. One that is complete with their own DNA which isn't identifiable as the mother's, nor belongs to any other species except that which is human.

The original poster's question was to me was foolery and not worth dignifying. I felt it was very loaded with agendas (like much of U777's posts). Zero respect for the guy considering it seemed evident he liked pot stirring. Such, is my opinion and belief though. It is the response of others like yours I'm more interested in, in particular why you see the born/unborn distinction you see U777 made as valid...

Fwiw, fetus is a Latin word variously translated “offspring,” “young one,” or “little child.” U777 probably thought himself smart in how he framed his question and used the term "fetus". But, if you read this you should understand better how/why I feel U777's question was loaded.